- what’s your source for the statement: “the average male leftist is hypogonadal”? Can not find that NPR research online
- what does “hormonally healthy” even mean? With the evidence you supply, one could argue that hypergonadism causes right wing voting.
- Assuming this is the same for women is just stupid
- Automatically linking this to our environmental toxicity is not even logical are reasonable without further sources
Sorry, your post is utter non-sense without proper argumentation. 👋👋👋
Go look it up bud. It’s not my job to link you the papers.
Sure bud, have fun on your fantasy planet :)
Thank god for ChatGPT and I still stand by what I’ve said. This is not scientific research in any way
• Glass, I. (Host). (2002, February 15). Testosterone [Audio podcast episode]. In This American Life. WBEZ Chicago. Available at: https://www.thisamericanlife.org/220/testosterone
Oh don't be that guy
Thanks, appreciate it! Although on the surface it looks interesting, I still have so many questions and I would NOT go out on a limb and make the same conclusions as you did.
First and foremost: how were the 136 democrats selected? How representative is this number for the entire population? When in what context where these individual asked about their party-affiliation? How does the “toxitity” of our environment influence our hormone levels? How evenly spread is this influence throughout the country?
Please, please, be more critical on what you find on the internet and especially this cesspool called xitter.
Not everything needs a study.
Just go outside and interact with people in the real world. You don’t generally see jacked bearded dudes (high T) at leftist protests. What you see is a lot of skinny fat dudes that are vegan. It’s not rocket science or controversial. Or just see how women vote (much more to the left than men)
It depends if you want to overcome your own convictions. If not, then no proper research can be left behind. What I said, living in a fantasy world is fine, but you'll never grow as a person. 🤷♂️
You would use tax payer dollars or fiat grants to run a study to verify that men are indeed stronger than women because only properly conducted research can answer that question.
I don't think these compare in that way. Besides that, based on proper study (referencing "the invisible gorilla" here), human beings are terrible at a lot of cognitive tasks which are fundamental to what you are proposing. So no I am inclined to disbelieve anything which has "common sense" as a basis, or at least I challenge my human reaction to believe it.
Anyway, we know _from research_ that men have, on average, more muscle power. So on average men are stronger, but a lot of women are stronger than a lot of men. And wether that's beneficial depends entirly on the goal you're trying to achieve. How much they work together etc etc. So the statement is arbitrary at its best. Wether or not you vote democrat or republican based on your hormonelevels are, is of quite a different order of impact on society if you ask me.
Wether or not tax dollars should be spent is a political choice.
I was curious, so I downloaded the data from that study and the data doesn't back up the claim you're making.
https://www.openicpsr.org/openicpsr/project/155441/version/V1/view
Here is the data from that study. The average pre-T levels for those associating as democrats were 496 and the average pre-T levels for those that associating as republican were 459. So pretty typical male T levels across the board.
I guess you have not heard that doing your own research is a Right leaning activity.
